Genealogy Chat

Richard, Not so strange. She was also a 'possession'. First of her father, and then of her husband. She had no rights of her own!

Thanks for that OC. I think I can safely say it's the right christening then. Just seemed unusual that in an age when children as young as ten were down mines and up chimneys, a 19 and half year old would still be considered a 'minor'.

The age of majority was 21 until very recently. Girls could marry at 12, boys at 14, with permission from their father or guardian. As the marriage was by licence, I think the wording reflects the fact that permission was sought from and granted by her father. OC

My 4xg grandmother Elizabeth Budd. 1841 census gives her age as 40, but I know that was in all probably rounded up to nearest five looking at other ages on page. Sadly she had died by 1851 census, so do not know her birth place. However there is a birth on IGI I think is probably her, Christening: 24 FEB 1799 Soberton, Hampshire, England , as this is round about right time frame, and is the neighbouring village to Hambledon where her husband was born and where she married. She also calls one of her sons 'Anthony' and the fathers name for that christening is Anthony. One of the two witnesses at her marraige is an 'Anthony Budd', which therefore is in all likelyhood her father. That said, looking at the record of her marraige that I have from the original parish records she is describes as a 'minor of the parish' : Richard KNIGHT, a bachelor of the parish of Hambledon & Elizabeth BUDD, a spinster & minor of the parish of Hambledon also, by licence 19 October 1818 in the presence of Anthony BUDD & Wm MERRETT. If that is the correct christening, she would have been 19 and a half at time of the wedding, so would she still have been described as a 'minor'? I can remember reading here that girls could marry as young as 12 back then, so doesn't seem to fit. Anybody able to help clarify that for me?

....